Supreme Court clarifies procedure for trying juveniles as adults under JJ Act: Ajeet Gurjar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (26 September 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 875

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a Children’s Court proceed with a trial of a juvenile as an adult without conducting a mandatory inquiry as per Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Ajeet Gurjar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court clarified the mandatory procedure that must be followed when a juvenile is accused of committing a heinous offense and is being considered for trial as an adult. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting the rights of children in conflict with the law.

Case Background

A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against Ajeet Gurjar and other accused individuals, alleging the commission of serious offenses, including murder, attempt to murder, and dacoity, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 395, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with offenses under the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (MPDVPK Act) and the Arms Act, 1959. The chargesheet was filed on September 12, 2016.

Initially, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) transferred the case to the Children’s Court based on a preliminary assessment under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The appellant, Ajeet Gurjar, then applied to the Children’s Court, requesting compliance with Section 19(1) read with Sections 6 and 15 of the JJ Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (JJ Model Rules). The Children’s Court rejected this application, leading to appeals to the High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, which was the Children’s Court, rejected Ajeet Gurjar’s application seeking compliance with Section 19(1) of the JJ Act and directed that the trial should proceed. Aggrieved by this order, Ajeet Gurjar approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Children’s Court had already framed charges against the appellant. The High Court also noted that the assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act had been completed before the transfer order under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act was passed. Additionally, the High Court considered the appellant’s antecedents and current age of 24 years, and held that the Special Court under the MPDVPK Act is also a Children’s Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:

✓ Section 15(1) of the JJ Act: This section mandates that in cases of heinous offenses allegedly committed by a child above the age of sixteen, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) must conduct a preliminary assessment of the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offense, their ability to understand the consequences, and the circumstances under which the offense was committed. The section clarifies that “preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence.”

✓ Section 18 of the JJ Act: This section deals with the orders that can be passed by the JJB, including the transfer of a case to the Children’s Court after a preliminary assessment.

✓ Section 19(1) of the JJ Act: This section outlines the powers of the Children’s Court after receiving a preliminary assessment from the JJB. It states:
“After the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under section 15, the Children’s Court may decide that – (i) there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and pass appropriate orders after trial subject to the provisions of this section and section 21, considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere; (ii) there is no need for trial of the child as an adult and may conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of section 18.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the Children’s Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 19(1) of the JJ Act, which necessitates an inquiry to determine if the child should be tried as an adult.
• The appellant contended that the preliminary assessment by the JJB under Section 15 is not a final adjudication on the question of trying the child as an adult.
• The appellant submitted that the Special Court under the MPDVPK Act is not a designated Children’s Court and that the case should be transferred to a designated Children’s Court under the POCSO Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court had correctly noted that the Children’s Court had already framed charges against the appellant, implying that the court had considered the matter.
• The State contended that the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was duly completed, and therefore, the transfer order under Section 18(3) was valid.
• The State submitted that the Special Court under the MPDVPK Act is also a Children’s Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the Children’s Court complied with the requirement of clause (i) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section deals with the preliminary assessment into heinous offenses by the Juvenile Justice Board.
• Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section outlines the orders that can be passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
• Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section specifies the powers of the Children’s Court.
• Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016: This rule pertains to the procedure to be followed while conducting inquiry under Section 19(1) of the JJ Act.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Section 15 of the JJ Act: The Court clarified that the preliminary assessment under this section is not a final adjudication on whether the child should be tried as an adult.

✓ Section 18 of the JJ Act: The Court noted that the order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 is based on the preliminary assessment under Section 15 and does not negate the requirement of a further inquiry under Section 19(1).

✓ Section 19 of the JJ Act: The Court held that the inquiry under clause (i) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 is mandatory and not an empty formality. The Court emphasized that the word ‘may’ in the opening part of sub-section 1 of Section 19 should be read as ‘shall’, especially in the context of clause (ii).

✓ Rule 13 of the JJ Model Rules: The Court directed the Special Court to have regard to the provisions of this rule while conducting the inquiry under Section 19(1).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the procedural safeguards provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court emphasized that the inquiry under Section 19(1) is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following key points:

• The preliminary assessment under Section 15 is not a substitute for the inquiry under Section 19(1).
• The order under Section 18(3) is based on a preliminary assessment and does not decide the final issue of whether the child should be tried as an adult.
• The word ‘may’ in Section 19(1) must be read as ‘shall’ to ensure that the Children’s Court conducts a proper inquiry before deciding on the trial of the child as an adult.
• The trial of a child as an adult and as a juvenile have different consequences, necessitating a thorough inquiry.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 19(1) of the JJ Act. The Court emphasized that the word ‘may’ in the opening part of sub-section 1 of Section 19, must be read as ‘shall’, considering the context of clause (ii). The Court also highlighted that the preliminary assessment under Section 15 is not a substitute for the inquiry under Section 19(1).

The Court rejected the argument that the framing of charges by the Children’s Court satisfied the requirement of the inquiry under Section 19(1). The Court clarified that the order under Section 18(3) is based on a preliminary assessment and does not decide the final issue of whether the child should be tried as an adult.

The Court quoted, “Therefore, holding an inquiry in terms of clause (i) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 is not an empty formality.”

The Court also observed, “The observation of the High Court that the order passed under sub-section (3) of Section 18 has attained finality completely ignores that the order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 is not a final adjudication on the question of trying the child as an adult.”

The Court further stated, “As such order is based only on a preliminary assessment, the law provides for a further inquiry in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 19 by the competent Children’s Court. Hence, the Children’s Court cannot brush aside the requirement of holding an inquiry under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 19.”

Key Takeaways

✓ The Children’s Court must conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 19(1) of the JJ Act before deciding whether to try a juvenile as an adult.

✓ The preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15 is not a substitute for the inquiry under Section 19(1).

✓ The word “may” in Section 19(1) should be read as “shall” to ensure the mandatory nature of the inquiry.

✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards for juveniles in conflict with the law.

✓ This judgment will impact how Children’s Courts handle cases of juveniles accused of heinous offenses, ensuring that the mandatory inquiry is conducted before deciding on the trial of the child as an adult.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

✓ The Special Court to comply with the requirement of sub-section 1 of Section 19 of the JJ Act.

✓ The Sessions Judge at Gwalior to examine if the Special Court under the POCSO Act is a Children’s Court and transfer the case if appropriate.

✓ The Special Court to decide the issue as expeditiously as possible.

✓ The concerned Court to have regard to provisions of Rule 13 of the Model Rules framed under the JJ Act while holding an inquiry under Section 19(1).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the inquiry under Section 19(1) of the JJ Act is mandatory and not an empty formality. The Children’s Court must conduct a proper inquiry before deciding whether to try a juvenile as an adult. This judgment clarifies the procedure to be followed in such cases and reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of children in conflict with the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajeet Gurjar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh clarifies the mandatory procedure that must be followed by Children’s Courts when dealing with cases of juveniles accused of heinous offenses. The Court emphasized the importance of the inquiry under Section 19(1) of the JJ Act, ensuring that the rights of children are protected and that decisions regarding their trial as adults are made after due consideration. The judgment sets aside the orders of the High Court and Children’s Court, directing the Special Court to comply with the requirement of sub-section 1 of Section 19 of the JJ Act.